Michael Sanchez

ARE WE LIVING IN AN AFTERMATH? The unspoken consensus seems to be that, in relation to the art of the previous decade, the early 2010s are a caesuraa waiting period at best, analogous to the early 1970s in relation to the ’60s, or the early ’90s in relation to the ’80s. Those older historical moments were not just lulls, however, but scenes of profound discursive and technological mutation. And likewise, over the past few years, a set of technical innovations have arisen that have reconfigured conditions for the production and distribution of art. Although this phenomenon was barely noticed

IN 1969, Dan Graham completed Likes, a “Computer-Astrological Dating-Placement Service,” which anticipated online dating services by using a computer algorithm to match potential partners on the basis of astrological signs, physical appearance, and relationship priorities. The program even incorporated user feedback, via newspaper advertisement, on the success or failure of matches already made.¹ In 1972, Joshua Young, a painter living in Los Angeles, circulated a series of questionnaires to area artists, asking with which of their colleagues they would like to exhibit.² An algorithm used their

Past a dried-up bouquet of flowers at the entrance to the gallery, the first piece to be seen in David Lieske’s exhibition “Imperium in Imperio” was a child mannequin standing on a pedestal covered in fabric. If it weren’t for his delicate eyelashes, the plastic boy would look aggressive, as if he’s about to throw the black velvet shoe placed on his hand. The shoe has an emblem on it—a sea horse surmounted by a crown—which turns out to be an ersatz family crest, concocted by Lieske’s uncle to serve as a logo for his advertising business. On the sole of the shoe is the name of its London maker: